Learned 2 New Things Last Night
 

One serious, one not so much.

Cal Ripken league game, uses OBR with some modifications.

1) R1 and R3, pitcher in stretch. He comes straight up with the leg, then wheels and throws to his F6, who is playing at his position. I balk F1 for throwing to an unoccupied base. Apparently this has been an issue before, because defensive head coach comes out with rule in hand, where there is a rule comment that a pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base with R1 and R3, regardless of whether the runners are in motion. So I agree with the coach, but enforce the balk on the fact that F1 threw to F6 at his position, not at second base. Correct?

This comment doesn't exist in OBR, does it? I've never heard of the rule, and the only thing I can find is 8.05(d), which supports my call. The pitcher did not become a fielder, nor was R1 advancing at TOP.

2) R1 and R2, next batter hits a shot to right-center that one hops over the fence. I call a GRD, award second and third. Runners off with the pitch, and R1 had gotten past second by time the ball left the field of play. 1B coach couldn't believe that R1 was not awarded home. Tried for 3 innings to convince me that because the runner had passed second, he got home. Did it all civilly, and for some reason didn't understand the rule, so I didn't have to even raise my voice in talking to him, but I was shocked that this guy, who I've seen coaching for 3 years, didn't know a ground-rule double is 2 from TOP.

All of this in 100+ degree heat and 65% humidity, in the first inning. Easy game the rest of the way and the coaches weren't that bad, but man, it was the weirdest first inning I've ever seen.

Nope
 

"So I agree with the coach, but enforce the balk on the fact that F1 threw to F6 at his position, not at second base. Correct?"


Incorrect. Only at first base does the player have to be at the base.

" . . . but I was shocked that this guy, who I've seen coaching for 3 years, didn't know a ground-rule double is 2 from TOP."


Please show me ANY documentation that confirms this award this would be real helpful too me.

Regards,

a) I am ending this conversation ASAP; the coach doesn't know the rule.

b) Said coach does NOT get to keep jabbering about the same call 3 innings later, because he is in either the parking lot or his Barcalounger.

c) I hate to use this word, but NEVER be shocked when a coach doesn't know a rule.


Ace in CT

Even with this rule modification and no runner at 2nd?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I can't say I've EVER heard that not being a balk :eek: I guess I've been wrong for years. Unless he is trying to drive back a runner, I was under the belief it is a balk:confused: :confused:

Tim-

That is a two base award from the TOP. Unfortunately, I don't have my rule books with me for documentation but in the NFHS it's in the handy baserunning awards chart. (I will make the assumption it's the same for OBR)

Matt-

You should never get surprised at what rules a coach doesn't know, I agree with ACE. I had a coach this year that didn't know you could tag up on a caught FOUL fly ball. I rolled my eyes at the thought :rolleyes:

-Josh

Play #1 - you said the coach came out "with rule in hand, where there is a rule comment that a pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base with R1 and R3, regardless of whether the runners are in motion." Huh? Where did he find this in print, or did he print it himself after he typed it out?
Pitchers can only throw to an unoccupied base to attempt to retire an advancing runner or to make an appeal.

Play #2

FED Rules page 53 - The Baserunning Awards Table

OBR - Sorry, can't find it right now.

PBUC - nothing listed.

JJ

???????
 

"OBR - Sorry, can't find it right now.

"PBUC - nothing listed."

I ask because I have seen MLB umpires twice this year award home on R1 running on a pitch and a long "ground rule double" that bounced over a fence.

Both awards drew a large (long) arguement but neither ended in an ejection or "reversal."

I contend here that under OBR the award is NOT from TOP.

Regards,

Seems everyone is more intent on continuing other arguments than answering your question.

I don't know what ruling the coach may have showed you on the first one but I don't know of such a ruling. I thought you ruled correctly to begin with. Throwing to a fielder who isn't at the base is a feint which is only illegal at first. But in this case, there is no runner and no play at second so it is a balk since it is illegal to feint to an unoccupied base.

On the second, to be picky, it isn't a "ground rule" double for the reasons the others stated. It's a "book rule" double, more specifically, 7.05(g)

Rita

Then things must be achangin'.

Rita

And
 

Rita:

That is exactly why I have asked the question in the way I did.

For decades I was under an understanding that in OBR umpires were allowed to "place" runners at their discretion in a play that ended as a ground rule double.

I also was under an impression that by "use and tradition" that the award was always two bases from TOP. I watched many, many arguements that involved a runner that was far past second base when the ball went out of play and were only awarded third base.

Now this year I have seen twice and additional base awarded. That is why I ask for OBR (PBUC) documentation that said the award is TOP.

I mean I know things are "chagin'" at the MLB level (heck three years ago I saw Joe Brinkman change a shot down the left field line from foul to fair DURING THE PLAY) and wondered what is up here.

Regards,

Tim,

From the MLBUM, 5.8:

From JEA:

and, in a case play following the discussion of 7.05(f):

Also, the J/R and BRD also support the notion that this is a TOP award.

So, I'm not familiar with the 2 sitches you are referring to, but ALL credible interpretation indicates this is a TOP award and I can't find ANYTHING credible that suggest otherwise.

JM

This was in print, in a rule book for the league they play in. I was shocked to see it, but I couldn't rule against what was said in print in the book. I'd never ever heard of throwing to an unoccupied base NOT being a balk, but I'll be damned if this guy didn't have the rule book opened to the page by time I got to the mound to explain it to his pitcher.

We had actually discussed this at the plate meeting, which was the first time I've ever had it brought up. We said it would be two bases, unless the ball rolled under any holes in the fence, in which case I would use my judgment. This might clear up some of the confusion I caused by using "ground rule" vs "book rule".


UmpJM, thanks for the rule citations, which I wouldn't have gotten from the MLBUM and JEA. Tim, what do you use to justify saying that runners should get the extra base? I'm not trying to start a whizzing match, I'm just trying to understand where, other than two situations this year, you would get that interpretation from.

A coach brought an openned rule book out on the field?

Buh-Bye.

Thanks
 

To UmpJM:

A tip of the cap and thanks tons.

Regards,

UmpJM, good work. Are you on vacation?? LOL

Could fan interference have taken place, or did the touch by the fielder cause the ball to go out of play?

I am nitpicking here, admittedly, as the rest of your source documentation is correct, but MLBUM 5.8 does not cover the situation in the OP--5.8 only covers balls deflected by fielders.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=44343

The link above is to a thread regarding a play where the second baseman originally touched the ball in fair territory (in and out of the glove twice) and then the ball bounds into the stands.

There is a citation in the thread to the PBUC manual that offers a different award based on the deflection by the fielder. I do not own a copy of the PBUC, nor the MLBUM, but I wondered at the time I originally read the previous thread if these two publications might offer different ways of handling this type of play.

Also of note is the announcer's explanation of the award. The announcer on the replay explains that the award is from R1's position at the time the ball enters the stands, but he does not expand on this enough for us to know if he was speaking this particular play, or if he believes this to be the case for every ball that bounces out of play. It does however give us a reasonable explanation for why a coach might believe that every ball bouncing and then entering DBT is a two base award from the time the ball enters DBT.

*edited to correct link

Matt,

If you're an NUA member of Babe Ruth you should call your games using only the Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken rule books. It's not unusual to show up at a park and have a coach try to explain a bunch of half cocked league rules they're using. Just tell them that as a Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken umpire you will call the game by the rules provided by the national organization. If they don't agree.......leave. We've had to deal with this sort of thing many times through the years, and over time the leagues in our area have come around to our way of thinking.


Tim.

Learned something new tonight...
 

Had a coach's interference call tonight, which led to the typical (crap)storm when I let play continue. Defensive coach comes up to me and says "I'm an umpire too, the ball is dead on coach's interference", to which I replied, "Then you should know the rule doesn't kill the ball." Honestly, I wasn't 100% positive, I was just focused on selling the call because I hadn't ever read coach's interference killing the play. 7.09(h) proscribes an out for the interference, but says nothing about killing the play. Did I screw up on a casebook play that I haven't seen, or did I get it right for some of the wrong reasons?

Here's the interpretation you're looking for, Matt.

Professional Interpretation:

“Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency. When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire should call "Time" and enforce the penalty. The runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (assistance). If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible. It is also consistent with other enforcement principles in the Official Baseball Rules in which you have a "delayed dead ball": 7.06(b) - Obstruction with no play being made on the obstructed runner; and 7.08(h) - Runner declared out for passing a preceding runner.


Tim.

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. With 2 runners standing on third base, R2 was headed back to second as the throw from F2 came to F5. 3BC then pushed R2 back to second as F5 ran R2 back towards second. Seems like I screwed up a play that I haven't seen in my 4 years of "real" umpiring.

Interesting. A play on two runners at the same time. I suppose the rat could have argued that they were playing on R3 rather than R2 who was the assisted runner, and the ball should have remained live. His argument wouldn't hold water, but it would be fun to listen to.


Tim.

That's the argument he used, only for a different league rule about R3 being allowed to steal home. He knew R2 was out for being helped, but he made the argument you posed about R3 being allowed to score.

Did you use the three words that prove umpire omnipotence?


"In my judgment."


Tim.

I should have, but didn't have to because of the ground rule we agreed on before the game. Any judgment call went out the window because the play was the result of a batted ball, not a steal attempt. It was a long, convoluted rule that didn't affect the play despite my gaffe.

Matt,

As I suggested to you before, if you're going to work Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken games you should really consider using the rule books intended for those leagues and refuse to put up with all the local league rules nonsense. There's an old saying that local rules are made by fools. They contribute greatly to may rules myths like "must slide."


Tim.

Two choices. Do as the employee directs or work somewhere else (or not at all). Most local leagues have some local rules. A time limit is perfect example. If I show up and they say we have a 2 hour time limit I'm not going to walk away stuttering "that's not in the book". Another example is intentional walks. If they want a league rule that says no pitches need to be thrown (ala FED) then go for it. Just explain what you want and I either take the assignment, or not. Can't recall a time where a local league rule scared me away.

One coach mentioned to me today "we have a lot of local rules, but we'll let you know if they come up what the rule is." I quickly asked him to explain everything to me. Most leagues I work have just FPSR modifications under OBR, or give one balk warning early in the season, but this was the one league that really gave me a lot of trouble. Luckily, their season ends this weekend so I'll be back to "Big Boy" ball early next week.

I guess belonging to an association that assigns certified umpires to six Babe Ruth leagues has it's perks. If they want quality officials at a fair price, rather than teenagers with no experience working their games, they allow us to insist on using the proper rules for the organization. Same goes for Legion and Mickey Mantle ball. I'm not knocking you for doing it to get the work in, Matt. I just didn't have to put up with local rules. If you look in the Babe Ruth rule book it spells out which "local: type rules a league may adopt. When they move outside of that, they're not being true to the organization they're supposed to represent. I'll get off my soap box..........

Tim.

That's what kills me about local rules!!! Our Babe Ruth /Cal Ripken has a rule allowing SUBSTITUTES to re enter the game even if there are no injuries. They have full re entry rights as well as starters. What KILLS me is that the local rule allows the starter to re enter the game and it does NOT have to be in the same place in the line up. I have made a pest of myself about this rule but the league will not change it.:eek:

Tim said he saw MLB umpires do it. So he was wondering if it had changed.

On the balk call, what league?

Rita

Found a website: http://www.macroweb.com/ibrules/bqpg0105.htm which has a similar situation along with their response:

Runner on second base; one out. The pitcher tries a pick-off, but no-one covers the bag. Rather than hold the ball, the pitcher throws to the shortstop, who is minding his own business at his regular fielding position. What is the correct ruling?
Your Answer: Balk. This is considered throwing to an unoccupied base
Correct Answer: Nothing. This is perfectly legal
Explanation: The pitcher is not required to throw to second base once he makes a step in that direction. Only to first base a throw to the bag is mandatory after stepping to that base. However, rule 8.05h may be invoked if the umpire judges that this act is done by the pitcher in order to delay the game. An umpire may call a balk for any unnecessary delay of the game by the pitcher.

It appears that according this website, if your throwing to a fielder that is not at a base it is perfectly legal.

You need not throw *DIRECTLY* at a base (except first -- and even there you can throw to the fielder if he is making a play). But, the throw is closer to one base than to any other, and that base must be occupied. In the web-site play, second was occupied -- so the throw is legal. In the OP, second is unpccupied, so the throw is illegal.

mlb 8.05b - unoccupied base cont...
 

I can't find anything to counter this on the unoccupied base issue:

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.
(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

Am I missing something?

what you are missing is that this comment is not meant to supercede the rest of the rule. you can't take a rule comment and read it like it is a rule. the comment you cite is at the end of the rule to add emphasis to the rest of the rule. comment (b) refers to 8.05d and is extra information. you have to read 8.05d first (which says he can't throw to an unoccupied base unless it's for the purpose of making a play) then move on to comment (b) which tells you that he can turn and throw to second without interruption (and now you have to think back to the other part and know that he can only do this if it is for the purpose of making a play.) confused yet?

some of those questions on the quizzes anger me. some of them don't give enough information, and some don't give enough options for answers. they need to be fixed.

purpose of clarification then?
 

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b), if not to quantify the previous rule (since it is at the bottom of 8.05)? is comment 8.05(b) not similar to an amendment to 8.05d? You are right, I am confused. To me, it clearly states that for this purpose, 2nd is not considered unoccupied. If it is not considered unoccupied, then 8.05d does not apply by definition, right?

it is unoccupied, but, F1 is allowed to throw there (even though it is unoccupied) if it is for the purpose of making a play. the comment is saying that, if he is making a play, then he can turn and throw as long as said turn is uninterrupted. the entire rule has to be taken into consideration in order for any of it to make any sense. what, specifically, are you trying to figure out?

Right: the point of (b) is to emphasize that F1 cannot start to throw to 1B, see that the runner has taken off, and then throw to 2B to get him. That would be a balk.

If he is throwing to 2B to make a play on an advancing runner, he must step and throw directly to 2B without interruption. This clause does not contravene any other provision of the balk rule.

Without the comment, too many players, coaches and umpires would have teh "outside move" (counterclockwise) by a RH pitcher to second as a balk because the pitcher first turned "toward first" -- even though he didn't make any other motion to first.

one continuous move
 

I ask because a balk was called in this situation. With a runner just on first, the pitcher lifted his front leg normally to pitch, but turned and went to 2nd. The umpire called a balk, and the coach tried to site this particular comment. I can't see where the coach is incorrect. I'm assuming there is something that clarifies this further somewhere, because it sure seems it would happen more if it wasn't a balk.

After the game, the UIC commented that it was a judgement call pending if the runner was actually going to second or not. I do not see where that comes into play. I understand the point he was making, I just don't see anything in the ruling referring to judgement on the runner.

The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).

The one thing that's not specifically mentioned is what happens if F1 decides not to throw at all. I assume that we'd treat it just like any other feint to 2B situation (he doesn't have to throw, but can) but the rule does say "throw."

Rich, is it ok to fake throw to an 'unoccupied' base?

I guess it comes down to semantics or logic, or what have you.. The rule states:

Rule 8.05
81
(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;

However,(and after 8.05d) comment 8.05 b says

(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

So if by definition, if this is "not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base", then 2nd is not considered "unoccupied". If it is not considered "unoccupied", then 8.05 (d) does not apply.

Marion, you are correct IF the runner is actually advancing to 2b.

To reiterate, in FED a 'feint' is considered an advance in this situation, so no balk is called. In OBR (all baseball outside of FEDlandia) if the runner feints and goes back to 1b, then you don't have a play at 2b. That is a balk.

With R1 only, 2B is unoccupied. F1 can throw to 2B only to make a play by 8.05(d). This concerns WHETHER F1 may throw to an unoccupied base.

8.05(b) concerns HOW F1 may throw to an unoccupied base, not WHETHER he may do so. He must do so with a complete turn, without hesitation toward 1B.

The rules do not conflict because they concern different questions.

No, it's not, but that doesn't answer the question. I've posed this question to a few very good HS/college umpires and all think this is no balk because he's allowed to throw to second for the purpose of making a play. OTOH, I point out that this is a specific exception and that it's (like you've said) a balk when one throws to an unoccupied base.

The retort is that "the fielder is never required to throw to second."

So that's where it sits.

As a retort, that makes no sense, since the issue is whether F1 is prohibited from throwing to 2B, not whether he's required to do so. Claiming that he's not required to do so can't show that he's not prohibited from doing so.

I didn't say it. I also think it's ridiculous.

BTW, I balked this during the game, which spurred the discussion. It didn't matter since it was R1 only and he advanced to second on the feint anyway.

OK, from your post I couldn't tell whether that was your retort. Glad it wasn't. ;)

OK - trying to clarify this rule.

YES - I am a 11 year old coach - we get this situation a lot.

R1 and R3. Lots of times the R1 will take off when our pitcher raises his leg trying to draw the throw so the R3 can score when we throw to 2B to get the out.

I understand that our pitcher can spin toward 2B (continuous motion and no movement toward the plate) and throw to 2B. This is an attempt to make the play on the runner.

Is this a balk?

What if the R1 stops and goes back toward 1B?

A R3 should not make any difference - correct?

In youth legue baseball many coaches don't teach the fact that a pitcher has to make a movement toward home before they should try and steal. Often, (with RHP) - they steal on first movement of pitcher. We should be able to just spin and throw toward 2B - correct?

aren't you a little young to be coaching?

I have run across coaches who were childish.

Around here, they only let the 11 year olds be ASSISTANT coaches.

And that's only because it brings a certain level of maturity and decorum to the games.

JM

I think that if you are going to throw the ball to an unoccupied base for purpose of making a play on an advancing runner then you must throw, not fake, and hope umpire agrees that there was an advancing runner.

Not a balk becasue, as you said, it's an attempt to make a play on the runner.

As long as he was making a legitimate attempt to advance and not feinting an advance (the distinction is umpire judgment), then it's still legal.

Correct.

Also correct.

How, you say...
 

MByron, that's what another official friend of mine said, that the rule is referencing that the RHP has to turn counterclockwise without hesitation to first to throw to 2nd. It doesn't say specifically that you cannot turn the other way, but I can see the inference, yet it sure isn't much. I've talked to half a dozen officials, not including this forum, and gotten at least 4 variances on an answer. To me that means it is at least a little unclear.

However, following your logic, it's like saying, "you cannot throw to an unoccupied base, but when you do, here's how you have to do it." So then it comes down "to make a play". I guess that's another discussion.

Thanks to all of you for your input.

Not quite right. Following my logic it's like saying: "you cannot throw to an unoccupied base with one exception, and for the exception, here's how you have to do it."